Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring – What’s the Difference?

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring – What’s the Difference?


‘My dear Frodo,
hobbits really are amazing creatures. You can learn all that there is to know
about their ways in the months, and yet after a hundred years, they can still surprise you.’
– J.R.R, Tolkien’s three part fantasy from Middle
Earth was first published in the 50s. While he initially intended it as
just a sequel to ‘The Hobbit’, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ has become so
wildly popular, it was voted Britain’s favorite
book ever back in 2003. – And there have been multiple
adaptations in the half century since it’s first publication. Several radio dramatizations, an animated
feature film, and of course the one we’re talking about here, Peter Jackson’s
award winning epics from the early opts. – Great, so let’s just deal with
all three of them at the same time. Ha. – Just ha man. – Fine, we’ll just start with
The Fellowship of the Ring. So, without further ado, and no restraint on spoilers,
it’s time to ask, what’s the difference? (Music) – To start with, let’s clarify what
version of the film we’re talking about. Since it is likely the most viewed
version, we’re talking about the original theatrical cup of the ‘The
Fellowship of the Ring’. Any other differences in the 30 extra
minutes of the extended edition, you can tell us about
in the comment section. – It’s also important to remember that
we’re just dealing with ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ here, not the entire trilogy. So, if we leave something out that
becomes meaningful in the second or third book, we’ll get to it in
our second or third episode. – So, with that little disclaimer,
let’s get started. – ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ starts
off with an extensive prologue detailing the long history
of the hobbits as a people. Tolkien describes things like
the geography of the Shire and surrounding areas,
the importance of pipe weed, and a few thoughts on the hobbits
skill as record keepers. This part of ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’,
reads largely as a historical text. Shedding light on the origin of
the hobbits before they head out on their adventure. – The film similarly begins
with an extensive prologue. It’s prologue however,
focuses on the forging of the great rings. This story is ultimately told by ‘Gandalf’
in the second chapter of the book. But the fact that the movie opens on
the history of the one ring is telling. Right away,
the film focuses on the danger and the evil lurking within ‘Sauron’s’ ring, as opposed to an anthropological study of
the people at the center of the story. – From there the book moves straight
into the long awaited party, ‘Bilbo’s’ 111th birthday celebration. ‘Gandalf’ arrives with some rad fireworks
and much is made with ‘Bilbo’ and ‘Frodo’s’ meddling relatives,
the ‘Sackville- Bagginses’. At the party, ‘Bilbo’ makes
a scene by bidding farewell to his kin before slipping on the ring and
disappearing completely. – The movies version of these
events play out basically the same. After the party, however, we come to one of the main
differences between book and movie. ‘Gandalf’ begins to suspect the ring
immediately, telling ‘Frodo’ to keep it secret, keep it safe,
before taking off to go do some research. He then returns in basically the amount
of time it takes to ride from Hobbiton to Minas Tirith and back to discover that,
yep, this ring is real bad news. – ‘One ring to bring them all
into the darkness spite’. – In the book, though, after the party,
‘Gandalf’ is gone for three years. Then a few years go by where he
visits the Shire frequently. Then he’s gone for nine more years before
finally coming back to give ‘Frodo’ the full story of the ring. – In the movie, a stricken and
concerned ‘Gandalf’ sends ‘Frodo’ and ‘Sam’ out of the Shire literally at dawn
the next morning or at the very least, were meant to read it that way,
based on how the movie is edited. – Book ‘Frodo’ takes a much more
measured approach to leaving the Shire. ‘Gandalf’ hangs out for a few weeks, before they even talk
about how to best leave. Then, ‘Frodo’ sells his home at
Bag End to the ‘Sackville-Bagginses’, buys another place in another town,
and moves all of his stuff there, so as not to arouse suspicion. Big picture here is, ‘Frodo’ is 33
at ‘Bilbo’s’ birthday party, and he leaves the Shire with
the ring when he’s 50. That means 17 full years go by before
any action is taken to destroy the ring. – The movie follows ‘Frodo’ and ‘Sam’s’
departure with a quick montage of them walking across the countryside, with shots
beginning at dawn, progressing through the day, and wrapping up towards dusk,
implying just one more day has passed. And it’s played as though it’s within the
next day that they run into ‘Merry’ and ‘Pippin’. They evade the ‘Black
Riders’ making it to Brie and the Prancing Pony later that night. Whether or not there are more nights
on the road hidden by the cuts between the scenes is completely irrelevant. The pace of these edits makes us think
that it’s happening very quickly. – Once they leave the shire in the book,
the hobbits do run into ‘Merry’ and ‘Pippin’ and
must evade the ‘Black Riders’, but they also spend a night at old Maggot’s
farm drinking beer and having a nice meal. Then they stop at Brandy Hall for a handful of nights with
comfortable baths and full bellies. And singing like so much singing. Then they spend three whole chapters
in the company of ‘Tom Bombadil’, a seemingly ancient protector of
the forest who saves their lives a few different times in
fairly rapid succession. – ‘Why don’t you stay with
me little guys?’ (Laugh) – You would expect a book as densely-authored as Tolkien’s
classic to have cuts for time, even when the film is as
thoroughly adapted as Peter Jackson’s. But these cuts aren’t strictly
edits to the narrative. These cuts instead seem to shift the focus
of the narrative from the journey being long and arduous in the book to the immediate
danger posed by the ring in the movie. Even cutting ‘Tom Bombadil’,
which is on its surface, an entirely narrative edit,
serves this function. It’s not leaving the safety of the shire
that imperils our heroes, it’s the ring and the urgency with which it must be
moved to Rivendell that drives the action. – But once the book and
movie arrive at the Prancing Pony, we begin to see some more
significant character differences. ‘Aragorn’ or
‘Strider’ as he’s first known to ‘Frodo’, plays a bit more outgoing in the book. He has a handful of sarcastic
bordering on dickish comeback for the hobbits when they first meet. He’s also carrying the shattered ‘Narsil’, the sword used to cut the one ring from
‘Sauron’s’ hand way back in the day. He even seems downright antsy
to see the sword reforged. – In the movie, though, the shards
of ‘Narsil’ reside in Rivendell, and movie ‘Aragorn’ is more than a little
reluctant to take up the mantle that goes with his lineage. While book ‘Aragorn’ does question his
own ability to lead the hobbits safely on their quest, there is little trace of
self doubt in movie ‘Aragorn’s’ actions. At least where the route for
Middle Earth is concerned. His place in the Kingdom of Men
is another matter entirely. – After teaming with ‘Strider’, the hobbits evade the ‘Black
Riders’ in Bree once again. They take their time heading
back into the wild, and when they do,
it’s in full view of half the town. The movie uses a wide shot of
Bree in the pre-dawn hours with the hobbits hustling up a hilltop
to imply a sneaky and immediate exit. – And again,
when ‘Frodo’ is stabbed on the Weathertop, he’s not immediately incapacitated
like he is in the movie. Instead, ‘Aragorn’ and the hobbits travel
with the still functioning ‘Frodo’ for nine days. Then an elf named ‘Glorfindel’ finds them
and guides them through the wild towards Rivendell for two more days before
the ring wraiths catch back up to them. – In the movie ‘Frodo’
gets stabbed at night, ‘Aragorn’ chases the ring wraiths off
at night, tends to ‘Frodo’ at night before being joined by ‘Arwen’,
‘Aragorn’s’ lady elf sweetheart. Who immediately takes off with Frodo’
en route to Rivendell that same night. If I seem like I’m over stressing
the time of day in which these events are portrayed, it’s because I am. The language of cinema
dictates more often than not, that all these events are taking
place in the same night. When we rejoin ‘Arwen’,
she’s sprinting across a field at dawn, implying only a few more hours had
passed since she began her flight. – ‘If you want him, come and claim him’! – Ultimately, ‘Arwen’ makes it to the
river with ‘Frodo’ into her peoples lands before summoning a flood to
wash away the Ringwraiths. But in the book, it’s ‘Glorfindel’
who sends his horse, baring ‘Frodo’, in his sprints towards the river. And when the still conscious
‘Frodo’ reaches the other side, the flood springs up
seemingly out of nowhere. And it’s not until later we discover that
‘Elron’ of Rivendell has summoned it. – So, while also mixing in some
modernized gender politics, the movie sees ‘Frodo’ get stabbed,
followed by a literal sprint to save him. In the book he’s got a shard of the
‘Ringwraiths’ blade’ stuck in his shoulder for 17 days. The movie, again, consistently opts
to make the threats more present, and the danger more immediate. Now, the movie version,
being a fantasy adventure epic, does add a handful of scenes to
make it more thrillingly cinematic. For example, ‘Gandalf’ and
‘Saruman’s radwizard, fisticuffs’ don’t appear in the book. After ‘Frodo’ wakes up in Rivendell, book
‘Gandalf’ describes how he was detained on the roof of ‘Saruman’s’ tower,
but not much else. Nor do we see any of the preparations
‘Saruman’ is making for war. – In fact, from this point on, the book and movie line up pretty well,
with a few minor changes here and there. The ‘Council of Elron’
decides on the Fellowship. – In the movie, they all volunteer,
but in the book ‘Elron’ appoints each member including those rascally
hobbits, ‘Merry’ and ‘Pippin’. – ‘You shall be
the Fellowship of the Ring’. – ‘Great’.
– ‘Where do we go?’ – Before the fellowship ever sets out ‘Narsil’ is reforged by
the Elves of Rivendell and ‘Aragorn’ renames it ‘Andúril’,
the Flame of the West. In the movies, ‘Narsil’ isn’t reformed
until much later, but like we said, we’re just covering ‘The Fellowship
of the Ring’ in this episode. Either way, once they set off from
Rivendell, ‘Gandalf’ outlines a route that lasts 40 days, in a rare reference to
a lengthy passage of time in the movie. But even then they run into
birds that are spies ‘Saruman’, which quickly causes them to change their
plans and attempt to cross Caradhras. So, there’s still a sense that
they’ve only been travelling for a few days before they are turned
back by snow and falling rocks. – In the movie, the snow is caused
by ‘Saruman’ as opposed to just the naturally inclement
weather on the mountain. This is another addition that places
‘Saruman’s’ villainy more front and center in the movie
than it is in the book. – After failing to cross the mountain, they made for the Mines of Moria, a trip
on screen that takes no time at all. The journey from the top of Caradhras
to the entrance of Moria in the book is much more eventful. The fellowship is attacked by wargs and ‘Gandalf’ even uses some pretty boss
sounding magical fire to fight them off. (Music) The decision to cut a nighttime ambush
around a campfire may have been difficult, but even a cinematic fight scene involving
pretty boss sounding magical fire would have slowed the pace of the movie. – Either way in both book and movie, they’re forced forward into the mine
by a gnarly squid kraken looking thing. ‘Gandalf’ says it’s a four day
trip through Moria and that may or may not have been the case. Events depicted in the Dark of Moria where
you can’t tell day from night seems to have taken two or three full
days in both the book and movie. – So, the trip through Moria culminating
with the new iconic you shall not pass scene on the bridge of Khazad-dum
are basically the same. And so, is the now ‘Gandalf’-less
fellowship’s trip through afterward. ‘Lady Galadriel’ lets the fellowship rest
in Lothlorien shares a terrifying vision in her mirror with ‘Frodo’ and then turns
down his offer to give her the ring in a, well, not terribly subtle way. – ‘All shall love me and the sky’. – Then after leaving Lothlorien and the Elves behind on the river, the book
‘Fellowship’s Journey’ takes a few days. Even having to fend off a pack of Orcs and a ‘Nazgul’ flying on his huge dragon thing
before finally reaching the waterfall. – The movie sees
the Fellowship go ashore for the first time at the edge of the falls,
after an uneventful, but scenic float. It’s not until after ‘Frodo’s’
confrontation with ‘Boromir’ which in both book and movie proves that
‘Boromir’ has lost the rings influence and ‘Frodo’ decides to set out on
his own that they are beset by Orcs that ultimately kill ‘Boromir’ and make of with ‘Merry’ and ‘Pippin,’
– The book wraps up with ‘Frodo’ putting on her ring, disappearing completely, and sneaking off into a boat to
continue his journey alone. Unlike the movie where he has a soul
searching conversation with ‘Aragorn’, none in the party know that
‘Frodo’ is taking off. ‘Sam’ figures that ‘Frodo’ would be
heading to the boats then almost drawn trying to join him,
just as he does in the movie. As in the final pages of ‘The Fellowship
of the Ring,’ ‘Boromir’ is alive and ‘Merry’ and
‘Pippin’ have not been kidnapped. – So, does that happen at
the beginning of ‘The Two Towers’? – I mean, probably to be honest,
I’m reading these for the first time as we’re doing these
episodes, so hang on, lemme skip ahead. (Sound) Yeah, totally. Like two pages in. – Okay, okay. So, the end of ‘The Fellowship’
movie borrows from the first two pages of the ‘Two Towers’ book. But again, the big difference with ‘The Fellowship
of the Ring’ versions is the pace. The book covers almost 20 years, while the movie seems to take place
over the course of a couple of weeks. Whether it’s literally supposed to be
less than a months worth of journeying or not, the effect is felt. The danger posed by the ring in
the film is nipping at the fellowship’s heels from the opening prologue
to the parting of the ways. – Okay, so while you were talking just
now, I read a little further ahead. And dude, check this out. – Nope, nope, nope, nope. First two pages is all ‘The
Two Towers’ they’re getting. – Aw, man. – Make sure to subscribe to Cinefix,
so you don’t miss the rest of ‘The Two Towers’ installment of our
journey through Middle Earth, right here on ‘What’s the Difference?’
– ‘Nobody tosses a dwarf’. ‘Ahh!’ (Sound) ‘Not the beard!’

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

100 thoughts on “Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring – What’s the Difference?”

  • Actually, did you guys know that there is 9 HOURS of footage that NO ONE has ever seen? It’s just sitting in archive somewhere. Basically, it is almost completely like the book, we just don’t get to see the complete version of the films that have THOSE extra scenes

  • It doesn't make any sense that Arwen is the one who came to pick up Frodo when he was sick because of his shoulder injury, instead of Glorfindel. The horse was supposed to be leading Frodo to Rivendell with no one riding him, too.
    And that love story between Arwen and Aragorn had no point and brought nothing to the movie.

  • There are actually several other things you missed that were different between the book and the movie. For one thing, Elrond wasn't originally gonna send Merry and Pippen, they had to convince Elrond to let them go with. Gandalf didn't actually know about the Balrog in the book it was actually Legolas who named it. Gimly was against going through the Mines if memory serves me right. Finally, the opening monologue where Kate Blanchet narrates the history of the ring. Is actually told by Elrond at the council.

  • The weatertop scene is very different in the books. While approaching they see strange lights as if someone is being attacked. This puts aragorn in doubt as the place is clearly not safe but the person under attack could be Gandalf. As all other routes would take so much extra time that they would run out of supplies, aragorn takes the risk of a nazgul assault on weathertop. While they are there they can see the nazgul approach from far and the noisy fire scene with aragorn away from the group never happens in the books (it made a fool out of both aragorn for leaving the group unprotected and the hobbits for making so much noise). In the books Frodo goes into some sort of ancient rage as the nazgul attack throwing them off guard while in the movie he stumbles and looks stupid. I dont understand why all this great, dramatic stuff was adapted in the movies.

  • I can't know, obviously, but I wouldn't be so sure the cinematic version would be the most viewed. Yes everyone in Cinema has seen it, but fans have seen the Extended Version (or as I see it: the intended Version, whereas I see the cinematic the cut-down version due to time restraints), BUT especially people (younger people perhaps) who didn't see the Movies in Cinemas, they probably saw the Extended Version, seeing as this is the version every fan will tell their friends to watch. I personally saw these in theatres, but of the like 20 times I saw these movies, 18 times I saw the Extended Version. I saw the cinematic version in theatres and once or maybe twice when they came out on DVD. As soon as the Extended Versions came out the cinematic ended up in the basement and I later gave them away to a friend.

  • In the Books the Fellowship stays and rests in Lorien for over a month. They only realise how much time has passed after they leave the forest. They think it's been a couple of days.

  • something I always noticed was at the gate to Moria. In the movie, Frodo figures out the door riddle, when in the book Gandalf is the one who realizes it is the word "friend". I just figured they were trying to give Frodo a little more clout.

  • I like the video, but you got some facts wrong. Pippin Sets out with Frodo and Sam while Merry and Fatty prepare the house in Crickhollow. They don't spend a night at Farmer Maggot's, they share a meal. They don't spend any time at Brandy Hall, but just observe it in passing.

  • Seriously guys? Non Tolkien people complain the books can be dry at times. When you are spending millions of dollars on a cinematic masterpiece, the last thing you want to come away with is a description of “boring” because they walked, and walked, and walked some more.

  • I kinda owe everything to these books ..i went through a lot as a child ..i had the evil stepmother who liked hitting people …i was 14 the first time I read these books ..and i used to go live in middle earth to escape my real life

  • Fellowship is in my opinion the best of the movies … Even though there's no epic battle compared to The two towers and return of the king … For me it it never gets old .

  • I am curious how many people who say the movies are truly great adaptations of the books were people who either A.) Watched the movies first, or B.) Grew up watching the movies as kids (nostalgia factor) and as a result have a separate bias towards these movies. This would explain why LotR trilogy fans have a particular disdain for the Hobbit trilogy, perhaps assuming these fans eventually read LotR and The Hobbit book. After all, how many older Tolkein fans (who knew of the books decades before the movies) genuinely enjoy the movies as truly faithful adaptations of the books?

    By the way, to clarify my perspective, I was born in 1997 and I grew up seeing the movies first then reading the books and later seeing the Hobbit trilogy.

    Sidenote: this subject of LotR film fans hating the Hobbit films could be compared to OG trilogy Star Wars fans (who likely grew up with those movies as kids) that disliked the Prequel trilogy.

  • Another difference while small is that the troll didn't stab Frodo it was a random orc captain with a large spear who was as large as a man

  • Wasn't it Sam who looked into the Mirror of gladriel and saw the scouring of the shire Frodo saw Gandalf and a few other visons

  • Proletarian plebiscite: ‘one-hundred and eleven

    Bilbo Baggins, an intellectual: ‘eleventy one’

  • While cutting Bombadil is pretty much a no-brainer (all three adaptations I know have done it), you could also argue that his inclusion would've undercut the power and menace of the ring (as emphasized by the movie). He is completely unaffected by it and doesn't even seem to care about it.

    Same reason why, later on, Faramir initially is presented as an obstacle to Frodo in the movies, whereas in the books he flat out says he wouldn't be interested in the ring or even touch it if he found it by the highway.

  • So in short, the movies were "shortened" for time, and spiced up to make it interesting. Though honestly I think that Peter Jackson did a great job at it. The first three movies were definitely a labor of love. Can't really say that for the newer ones.

  • If you look at a map of Middle Earth, you’d realize just how impossible it would be for the main characters to be getting to their destinations as fast as they do in the movie.

  • The Hobbits never stay at Brandy Hall in the books, they pass by it on there way to Frodo's new house in Crickhollow, they stay there a night and the next morning head into the Old Forest hoping to lose the Black Riders who they figure will be searching the roads. Then they run into Bombadil. Also they don't run into Pippin, he set off with Frodo and Sam from the beginning. Merry joins them later when he comes looking for them and finds them in the company of Old Farmer Maggott.

  • "…Gandalf outlines a route that lasts 40 days, in a rare reference to the lengthy passage of time in the movie."

    Wait, are you saying that Gandalf mentions "40 days" in the movie? When? What's the exact line?

  • Returning to Middle Earth 30 years later is like returning to my hometown and wondering how it got so small.

    Wizards cannot think without a pipe.

    Desperate action is needed immediately, yet everyone takes years to get ready.

    The Nazgul are corrupted men, so mankind is hopelessly corrupt, right?

    Yet the men of Dale, the Rohirrim, the Dunadan, the men of Gondor, and Aragorn himself are all fine.

    Smeagol had (and wore) the One Ring for centuries, but the rest of the Hobbits were completely uneffected.

    The One Ring is so powerful that everyone on Middle Earth is either worried about it or trying to get it. Yet it means absolutely nothing to Bombadil.

    The Elves, Dwarfs, Wizards, Ents, and Hobbits are all gone, leaving only Mankind, which is corrupt. So … the good guys actually lost?

  • this is poorly researched, in the book, they never spend the night at farmer maggots, they never stay at brandy hall, and merry and pippin are "in on it" from the start. they dont just run into frodo in the shire. and im only a couple of minutes in.

  • ohh makes more sense to end the first book where the movie end not have the that be the first 2 pages of the second book more a cliffhanger end that would be

  • Its sad that most people only know the theatrical version. To me Lord of the Rings is the definiton of "Extended Version or you havent seen the movie"

  • Yeah, 17 years go by… in the space of like half a page. It's such a ridiculously nonchalant time jump, which makes it seem as though absolutely nothing of interest ever happens in Frodo's life. 17 years of jack shit, so unremarkable that it's covered in the space of a couple of paragraphs. I can see why Jackson didn't feel the need to hold true on that one.

  • They didn't encounter natural weather on the misty mountains but an entity (a guardian of the mountain) threw the weather at them to get rid of them.

  • It's nice to view a comment section that's actually insightful and share added information to people who have never read the books.

  • 2:08: ". . . Bilbo's one hundred eleventh birthday celebration . . ." It was his eleventy-first birthday celebration, you fool of a Took.

  • hmm you guys didnt do your research very good. you always make it seems like everything happens in a day, as in movies its hard to portrait time but if u listen to the dialog sam for example tells aragon they are walking with frodo through the woods for days.

  • What's interesting in the movie is that it seems that in the same night that Frodo was stabbed on Weathertop, they lay Frodo down at the stone Trolls in the Trollshaws. There's at least a few days' journey between those two places, but the movie makes it seem pretty immediate. I don't think that was necessarily intentional, however. They placed a cut to scenes of Gandalf's imprisonment at Isengard and Saruman's work in creating his Uruk-hai army in between these two. I think it was intended to allow for time to pass between Weathertop and the Trollshaws although it doesn't seem like it because it's all at night.

  • In the book the mayority of the hobbits have dark hair. And Frodo is different because of his blonde hair, in addition to his adventurous personality.

    In the movie is the opposite. The hobbits overall have a light hair and Frodo is the dark haired one.

  • I'm kind of upset how little time they gave to the scene of sam's pony being sent away in the movie. It was much more touching in the book.

  • I'm glad Tom Bombadil wasn't in the film, intriguing character though he may be. I suffered through all that singing and verse the first time I read it, and have skipped it every time since.

  • OK, I realise that the scouring of the shire was in The Return of The King, but in Fellowship Galadriel also shows Sam something in the "mirror" which alludes to it, and which you missed. Also, when the company departs Lothlorien, the elves give ropes to Sam ( OK all of them ) and much is made of their qualities. Galadriel also gives Sam a gift of a box with some soil and a seed from a Mallorn tree. Jackson cut the Scouring, so he also cut Sam's view into the mirror, and the Mallorn, which Sam planted to replace the Party Tree.

    Bombadil was the first to mention Ents. I get why he was cut, and Goldberry of course, but I was disappointed. TLOTR was too important, too iconic for Jackson to fuck with. I love the movies, but I still prefer the books.

  • I never thought that in the movie time was moving so fast like day to day. I always just assumed it would be weeks between locations, they just don't have to time to show it.

  • you guys missed a few minor details like galadriel only giving frodo the light of elendil (whereas in the extended cut, the gifts are distributed). there was also more confusion as where to go if they chose where to go. the only real conflict the movie had in terms of geographical location towards the end of the book is boromir's greed. in the movie, aragorn pretty much already decided to pretty much go to the path frodo took and gimli was none too happy "recover my strength?!"

    also, when they reached lothlorien, gimli was forced to wear a blindfold since it was the law of the land, but aragorn chose that they all did so he wasn't singled out. the lady then apologizes to gimli later. also, it is said that gimli and legolas were becoming steadfast friends after the trip to lothlorien.

  • Am I the only one who has read the books but actually prefers the movie version? It’s just so much more tense and emotionally impactful for me, but that’s just my opinion because you have to respect the source.

  • I have always thought the movie was like watching a game of D&D – "We have a quest.", DM – "Do you go on the quest?" – Roll some dice, "yes" – DM "You travel for many days and night", roll some dice, some stuff happens, and then DM "you come to a tavern". roll the dice, more stuff happens – DM "You meet some others in the tavern who can help on the quest Do you have them to join?" ,DM more stuff happens, and "you take your party on the quest." roll the dice, some more stuff, roll the dice, "What does your Wizard do?", "You shall not Pass", roll the dice, meet some badies, do you defeat them? Roll the dice and find out…, AND just when "we get near the end of the quest" -Then DM say "Oh wait, we are out of time, come back next week to see how your hero will do."

  • You didn't mention that in the book the hobbits get their swords from the barrowwights. If I remember correctly.

  • 0:00 fun fact in this scene Gandalf was actually referring to the sex that which they had just engaged in, unfortunately it was cut.

  • I watched the latest extended and I feel like it ruins it; the scene after frodo gets stabs and u see sams and he says "heys Mr.frodo its the stone trolls from Bilbo's Story"

  • I guess I enjoyed it differently. To me the movie was paced very well, I never felt it was rushing or happening too soon. The transitions from night to day gave us the idea of a long time passing.

  • In the book Frodo leaves to his quest like in years after Bilbo leaves. But in the film frodo leaves like immediately and i was surprised too. But frodo leaving years later makes more sense because it gives time for sauron to regain power. So yeah im enjoying the book so far. Well I'm in the 1st book.

  • Lol spoiler alert. if you haven't seen this films in the passed 18 years then i dont think is much of spoiler. After all you have had the chance for 18 years.

  • The captions are terrible on this. You would think they'd pick someone to create the captions who has actually read the book or seen the movie.

  • The whole part that Tolkien opens with where he gives the history about hobbits (concerning hobbits) is actually in the extended edition right after the movie covers sauron's defeat and before frodo's in the woods waiting for Gandalf. The lack of that one scene pains me everytime I watch the theatrical, it's just so good at countering the battle intensity of the first 5 minutes and sets a great tone

  • The movies are an abomination.
    Artistic liberty is one thing, but Jackson completely rewrote characters and events.
    I liked the movies, until I read the books and realized how bad the movies actually are.

  • Did i see a picture of the spice girls holding a book, im sure at least half of them are illiterate, and one is barely capable of speaking english.

  • I thought Jackson's adaptation was as good as it could get, although he could have dropped Legolas shield surfing and Gimli as comic relief.

    But I still would have loved to see the Barrow Wight scene anyway, just because it was so creepy.

  • There are way more differences that you are telling in the video. Moria is not the same, no troll comes as in the movies but in the books it´s orcs captain that comes and stabs Frodo with the spear and so on…

  • The book was so boring and long winded with far too much time is spent on journeying, Peter Jackson creating these films is a genius and the films are superior to the books

  • The movie is better imo. The movie would take forever and would be less climactic if it included everything from the book